Should covid liars and deniers be punished or blocked ?

[jvs]

1 minute ago, Curt1591 said:

Who proves the lies and how are they proven?

The earth is flat,if you do not believe in a certain god you will go to hell,if you play with yourself you will go blind,if you behave badly Santa will not give you presents,it is not only Covid lies and

untruths ,the world is full of it.

Not easy to stop,i would say impossible!

I borrowed this from the joke section but it is not a joke.

[Poet]

14 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

I live in the US. People, in certain states (each about the size of a typical European country) also feel that individual rights should trump. Look where they are now. Many "stupid" people are ignorant, and are infected with covid. Many are hospitalized, others are dying.

I think one of the main objections, early on, was that rules were put in place that were appropriate for densely populated New York but not rural parts of Texas where no cases had yet emerged. As you note, the US is a very big, very diverse country.

Personally, I have taken steps in my own life to minimize my chances of becoming infected and, as soon as it is available to me, I will get vaccinated. None of that required new laws, common sense and self-interest are sufficient. I mention this because I want to be clear that I am not a "covid-denier" but what I am about to say may be difficult for some to hear:

The states that have been hit hardest have had some of the toughest restrictions and have been under Democrat governance, so, not typically where those talking about individual rights live.

The problem with turning any death from disease into a sort of karmic parable, in which we sneer at the stupid, ignorant deniers who are now deservedly dying, is that it miscategorizes what this virus is. That is a deadly mistake to make.

The virus does not care if you are a Black Lives Matter protestor or an individual rights protestor. That the newscasters felt that the looters in Philadephia were justified should not have overridden their responsibility to point out that, in the middle of a pandemic, all these people should have been in their homes.

Getting politics mixed up in all of this has been a terrible idea.

 

[mr mr]

44 minutes ago, robblok said:

49 minutes ago, Poet said:

Well, now, as it happens, neither of those things are true, so, are you not yourself guilty of spreading false news when it suits you?

 

I already retracted it, and admitted i was wrong. Its just that there are a lot of people on this forum with anti German feelings. Usually the older UK crowd. Just assumed it was one of those. 

 

But you actually had a good point so i retract what is say. Was well reasoned.

 

now this is what we need a heck a lot more of. very impressive robblok. ????

 

thank you two for this.

 

edit...after reading the later comments it got even better between you two.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by mr mr

[OneMoreFarang]

There will always be people who spread lies online and offline. Some do it intentionally, some are just sheep who don't know any better.

 

I think the real problem are all those people who believe misinformation. Obviously sometimes it is difficult for us to know which information is correct and which is incorrect. But in many cases we can just look at a couple of established news organizations on the internet, TV, newspaper to get a pretty good idea about the truth.

People with at least basic education should be able to find the truth - if they want to.

 

About punishment: I think politicians who are paid by the tax payers and who are supposed to work for the people should be held responsible for what they say. And if they lie then they should be punished. I.e. they have to apologize in public and correct their false statements. And if they don't do that they should lose their jobs - anywhere in this word.

 

[FarFlungFalang]

41 minutes ago, robblok said:

And no I have no solution, i like freedom too. But at what point is the cost of freedom too high. Should freedom of speech be the same as freedom to lie ?

One would also have to distinguish between a lie and a belief.Some choose to believe what others determine to be a lie.Do we take also take away people's right to believe what they choose?Best just to agree to disagree I think.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Poet said:

As a Dutchman, the slippery slope you need to worry about when you start feeling the urge to control the speech of others is that you might wake up as a German.
 

Germans don't allow lies about the holocaust. Is that bad?

As far as I know there are also other lies which are not allowed in many countries like shouting "fire" without good reason.

Obviously there are some issues were it's not so easy to establish the truth. But there are many things, like covid, which without doubt exist and people who deny it are liars.

[FarFlungFalang]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There will always be people who spread lies online and offline. Some do it intentionally, some are just sheep who don't know any better.

I'm under the impression that lying is done intentionally and knowingly.

[Salerno]

3 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Best just to agree to disagree I think.

 

Which is all well and good until it becomes dangerous, which is the point behind the OP I believe. 

[Jeffr2]

49 minutes ago, Poet said:

 We need to once again develop the moral strength to tolerate new ideas and different opinions.

Agreed.  As long as it doesn't impact the health and welfare of others.  CV19 deniers and anti-vaxx'ers do this.  They should not be tolerated.  And are not here in Thailand and other countries as well.

[Jeffr2]

42 minutes ago, Curt1591 said:

 

Who proves the lies and how are they proven?

Anyone who takes the time to fact check will know they are lies.  In many cases, this is an easy task. 

[Poet]

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Agreed.  As long as it doesn't impact the health and welfare of others.  CV19 deniers and anti-vaxx'ers do this.  They should not be tolerated.  And are not here in Thailand and other countries as well.

I'm confused. You agreed with my statement that "we need to once again develop the moral strength to tolerate new ideas and different opinions" but, then, go on to specify two sets of belief that should not be tolerated.

I am saying we should tolerate the new ideas and different opinions ... even when we don't agree with them. That's sort of the whole point ????

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Poet

[Jeffr2]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Germans don't allow lies about the holocaust. Is that bad?

As far as I know there are also other lies which are not allowed in many countries like shouting "fire" without good reason.

Obviously there are some issues were it's not so easy to establish the truth. But there are many things, like covid, which without doubt exist and people who deny it are liars.

Actually, you can yell fire in a movie theater.  As long as nobody is hurt, you can't be arrested.  That was a supreme court ruling years ago.  But, here's what you can't say, in the US.

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

 

Quote

 

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

 

 

[FarFlungFalang]

9 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Which is all well and good until it becomes dangerous, which is the point behind the OP I believe. 

I agree, and so when it does become dangerous there are already laws in place to take action,and the arduous process of gaining a conviction and enforcing penalties takes place.

Edited January 21, 2021 by FarFlungFalang

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, Poet said:

I'm confused. You agreed with my statement that "we need to once again develop the moral strength to tolerate new ideas and different opinions" but, then, go on to specify two sets of belief that should not be tolerated.

I am saying we should tolerate the new ideas and different opinions ... even when we don't agree with them. That's sort of the whole point ????

 

If that new idea and different opinion impacts the health and well being of others, then it shouldn't be allowed.  I'm specifically referring to anti-vaxx'ers.  Who cling on to fake news and spread lies and misinformation.  Which has been proven to result in deaths.

[Poet]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

If that new idea and different opinion impacts the health and well being of others, then it shouldn't be allowed.  I'm specifically referring to anti-vaxx'ers.  Who cling on to fake news and spread lies and misinformation.  Which has been proven to result in deaths.

The problem we can already see is that the terms "anti-vaxxer" and "covid-denier", two different positions, are already being conflated and applied to anyone who questions the very big decisions, many of them contradictory, being made by our governments. Actual real, long-standing, important rights are being rolled back without any democratic discussion.

So, when you say "anti-vaxxers should be denied a platform for their crazy, dangerous ideas" it ends up getting hysterically applied to people asking perfectly reasonable questions, such as the journalist Peter Hitchens. He may be wrong, but the questions he asks should be asked, and it is astonishing how few people with any sort of platform have the courage to do their job in the current climate of fear.

 

[Salerno]

10 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I agree, and so when it does become dangerous there are already laws in place to take action,and the arduous process of gaining a conviction and enforcing penalties takes place.

 

What laws cover "they stole the election" or "covid is a scam" or "vaccines are all part of the plan to take over the world" or numerous other conspiracy BS that gained traction amongst a certain demograph around the world recently?

 

If someone is convinced they never landed on the moon or the earth is flat who really cares, some conspiracy theories are good for a laugh, others have a certain level of plausibility but some are downright dangerous to health and the world as we know it.

[PremiumLane]

1 hour ago, sanuk711 said:

"Should covid liars and deniers be punished or blocked"

 

What sort of punishment did you have in mind for people with a different opinion then you Rob.....

and here is the problem in a nutshell. One one side you have people dealing with facts and on the other you have people peddling disinformation and utter nonsense. Yet, you think it is just about a difference of opinion.

 

What we need is more education on critical thinking, science and how to process news

[cdemundo]

1 hour ago, sanuk711 said:

"Should covid liars and deniers be punished or blocked"

 

What sort of punishment did you have in mind for people with a different opinion then you Rob.....

That is the problem, are there facts and truths, or is everything simply matter of opinion?

Most people would say there are facts and truths but how to determine the truth?

 

 

[Curt1591]

31 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Anyone who takes the time to fact check will know they are lies.  In many cases, this is an easy task. 

 

Many leave it to "independent fact-checkers", too lazy to check themselves.

Here is Facebook at its best: 

[Sheryl]

What you are referring to is a broader issue and problem than just COVID misinformation.

 

It is the spreading of factually inaccurate information likely to harm public welfare.

 

This is nothing new but the availabilty of internet and social media has greatly amplified how extensively and fast misinformation spread.

 

It is a problem to be sure but the solution is far from obvious and needs to be approached cautiously as any law to penalize or forbid misinformation could be used to suppress dissenting opinions.  There is also the question of how to prove intent (knowingly spreading false information claiming it to be fact) since can hardly prosecute people for unintentional factual errors, that would  shut down virtually every platform and newspaper/news show. 

 

There is a risk of the cure being worse than the disease.

 

Every country has its own legal framework regarding free speech and will have to deal with this problem in that framework.

 

I think one place to begin might  be with  people who falsify their identity and/or intentionally spread misinformation for pay.  Sock puppets and the like.  It takes on a life of its own after a while but a lot of the misinformation/conspiracy nonsense begins with such intentional manipulations by vested interests.

 

But even that (and I do not think the US First Amendment, for example, gives  people a right to mislead others as to who they are/create multiple fake identities) would need to be approached cautiously to ensure that any law or regulation enacted cannot be misused to suppress honest dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

That is the problem, are there facts and truths, or is everything simply matter of opinion?

Most people would say there are facts and truths but how to determine the truth?

 

 

In case of what i read the truth is easy. Just go to a hospital find some covid patients and then its the truth that there are patients and what this guy 80 year old homeopathic doctor said an outright lie. But i agree often its much harder to determine.

 

But its scare that even these kind of guys get a platform. Thankfully this came in the news and people responded shocked.

[Mama Noodle]

Never been able to wrap my head around individuals who have an extreme desire to silence others, either directly or indirectly. 

[PGSan]

2 hours ago, sanuk711 said:

with a different opinion then you

Not at all related to ‘opinions’! 

[PGSan]

43 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

As long as it doesn't impact the health and welfare of others.

Or contribute to bad and illegal behaviour (such as storming government buildings and disrupting the legislature??).

[ThomasThBKK]

1 hour ago, Poet said:

You're behind the times, my friend ????

The Germany of today has stringent laws against free speech, known as "Volksverhetzung".

Understandably after all they've been through, the Germans worry about fascism taking hold again.

My point is that, traditionally, the Dutch have been seen as more tolerant and willing to trust in the ability of people to make their own decisions, whether than be the drugs they smoke or the ideas they hear.

 

 

This is a really dumb argument, these kind of laws exist in every country including the netherlands, but how would you know laws of your own country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country

 

Quote

The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:

• Article 137c: "He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category."^[50]
• Article 137d: "He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category."^[51]

In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.^[52] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges.^[53] In 2016, in a separate case, Wilders was found guilty of both insulting a group and inciting discrimination for promising an audience that he would deliver on their demand for "fewer Moroccans."^[54] The group insulting verdict was upheld on appeal in 2020.^[55]

 

Your freedom ends where it endangers others peoples freedom - it's that simple.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech but is often used as an argument by a specific group of people....

 

You can go live on TV and tell merkel that she sucks at her job and should be replaced with a monkey - that is free speech. 

 

Your point is, you don't have a point, you are just talking <deleted>.

 

[PGSan]

43 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

in the US.

How is any of this related to what happens ‘in US’??  We are taking about civilised countries where mob rule is not encouraged so much! 

Edited January 21, 2021 by PGSan

[cdemundo]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

In case of what i read the truth is easy. Just go to a hospital find some covid patients and then its the truth that there are patients and what this guy 80 year old homeopathpic doctor said an outright lie. But i agree often its much harder to determine.

 

But its scare that even these kind of guys get a platform. Thankfully this came in the news and people responded shocked.

I don't bring this up to argue with you.  The problem is complicated..

However, even when something can be easily proved to be false the law sometimes protects speech that is untrue (at least in the USA).  The US "Stolen Valor" act of 2005 made it a crime to falsely claim military service, honors, or rank.  The US Supreme Court declared the law a violation of Freedom of Speech.  A second "Stolen Valor" act of 2013 made such false claims a crime only if it was done "with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit."  Which apparently has not been considered a violation of freedom of speech.

I'm no lawyer, but I think most people would consider such false claims abhorrent and offensive for any reason, but under law they are protected.

[PGSan]

4 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

but under law they are protected.

But Only in one somewhat backward country where ‘constitution worship’ is a state religion.

[rumak]

2 hours ago, Gumballl said:

Unfortunately, one of the tenets of a free society is free speech.

 

An individual has to use their own intellect to survive in today's world. I guess one could say the same about yesterday's world too.

 

Shouldn't you say  Fortunately ?      And just how many brilliant people in history were ridiculed and even prosecuted or worse for views that did not go with the norm ?  

 

The world hasn't changed that much.....except now the bits and pieces of "news"  that are presented on the usual platforms are more biased than ever.    And people like the OP  and anyone who quickly agee with him are more and more the norm .   

[PGSan]

7 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

at least in the USA

Yes, very much least.  The USA is totally irrelevant to this discussion.  Geddit???